Design Discourse - Composing and Revising Programs in Professional and Technical Writing, 2010a

Lipson
time to time. My sense is that a collaborative model provides less independence
and focus, yet offers broader experiences and multiple rewards for those who are
willing to engage with it. At times, I envied colleagues elsewhere who had the
luxury of focusing solely on publication and teaching in professional and technical
writing. All told, however, I feel gratified for the risky, changing, collaborative
environment here and all that it has entailed.
I would be remiss, though, if I did not emphasize finally that collaborative
program leadership, especially involving fields of composition and PTW,
can occur within English Departments and can be absent in independent Writing
Programs, depending on the leaders themselves, on the particular faculty
within the units, and on the department and campus cultures. There is no inherent
one-to-one correspondence with the type of location. And a collaborative
environment does not mean that collaboration occurs across the board. Here at
Syracuse, collaboration occurred in certain aspects and areas, and not in others,
and the specifics all changed with differing circumstances and different leaders.
Collaboration in administering a writing program is of necessity a nuanced activity,
affected by an array of constituent factors.
notes
1
The PhD was in twentieth century British Literature; I came to SU with
three years of experience as a technical writer at Caltech, as well as experience
in science writing for a non-specialist audience and in writing for industry as a
consultant.
2
See Joseph Harris, “After Dartmouth: Growth and Conflict in English,” College
English, October 1991, 631-646.
3
This individual claimed to have a letter from a prior Chancellor of SU making
him Director of Freshman English for life. While no one could locate a copy of
such a letter in any university files, the college was understandably unwilling to
remove this individual from his position, fearing legal action.
4
There were of course reasons for this approach. For instance, during the same
period, a new Chair was hired in the English Department, having made very
clear his curricular vision for the department, which sought to develop a more
theoretically based curriculum. He wanted to work collaboratively with faculty
to develop a concrete curricular proposal, hopefully enacting his vision. He met
for two years with theorists in the department, who would not agree to implement
the ideas of the individual they had hired to lead the department. The
proposal that resulted from the years of meetings was not one that any one of the
individuals would have favored as the most desirable approach, but it was all the
314